I’m not saying you must vote for the party, we were originially just talking about the presidential election

Yes, you are. And the elected president is the head of the party. Again, for someone so hung up on it, you don’t actually seem to know anything about how elections or electoral politics work.

However, individuals choosing not to vote for the party does tend to give the benefit to the opponent, which may not be a good choice in the current political climate.

Here you are saying it again, as you have dozens of times throughout this thread, as you well know.

To be effective it has to be a large enough movement, making it’s requirements known clearly, for there to be a measurable effect.

Plenty of movements throughout history have done this. Polling data shows this. It has no effect without the threat of combined removal of votes and (at least the implicit threat of) violent opposition.

You assert this repeatedly but never offer what those requirements are or how to achieve them. Only methods that directly limit the ability to do that. So please quantify your assertion and your strategy.

Get enough people demanding better than FPTP voting and you’ll find a candidate that supports it. Find enough candidates across the nation who support it and it can be made to happen. Fix that and other changes become easier to achieve.

But I can’t vote for those candidates because I have to vote for the supposedly ‘lesser evil’ of the two parties that oppose it, right? That’s your original premise here.

Also, FPTP has been used in the UK since the middle ages despite the fact that it’s always faced opposition from voters. So what’s your timeline for this reform via narrow electoralism?